Another way in which M.P.‘s scrutinise the Government is through Question Time. Each Wednesday the Prime Minister is questioned for an hour by Parliament. This effectively checks up on the government, as the supplementary questions that M.P.‘s ask the Prime Minister are unexpected. Therefore the Prime Minister is caught off guard without any planned answer. As a result the Prime Minister is forced to explain and justify his policies.
In spite of this the Prime Minister and his ministers don’t have to answer any of the questions put forward by the opposition and other M.P.‘s. Also question time has been criticised for being too stage-managed and ritualised. This is because of the use of ‘planted questions‘. This is where the Prime Minister gets sympathetic M.P.‘s to ask him questions, which he already has a planed answer to. Thus making him and his government look good, yet not allowing the process of scrutiny to be successful. Tony Benn, an M.P. has even renamed question time, to “gardeners question time”, due the extent of which Tony Blair and ex Prime Minister’s such as Margaret Thatcher, use of planted questions.
Nevertheless, the opposition are always a key mechanism of the scrutiny process. They efficiently scrutinise the government by acting as a government in waiting, and by having their own ’shadow cabinet’. This shadow cabinet appoints ministers similar to the actual government, which allows for them to check up on each part of the government. They seek to oppose and criticise the government. The opposition are also allocated a number of opposition days in which they are free to choose the topics of debates. This allows them to effectively scrutinise the government.
In spite of this, the opposition cannot scrutinise the government to the best of their abilities due to a few problems. These problems are the lack of resources, the limited research facilities, and the limited support services. Without the necessary backing form the government, the opposition are at a disadvantage and can only use what available in order to scrutinise the government. Consequently, M.P.‘s cannot act effectively as a watchdog to government.
Standing committees also give M.P.‘s the chance to scrutinise and amend the government’s Bills. However these standing committees are widely renowned for not carrying out this function due to excessive partisanship, limited information, limited expertise, limited time and limited amendment powers. All of these faults allow for the standing committees at be extensively ineffective at scrutinising the government.
On the contrary another committee dedicated to scrutinising the government is the Select Committees. These committees scrutinise the expenditures, administration and policies of each government department. The M.P.‘s in these committees have a specialised knowledge in one area; therefore their powers of criticism are stronger. Thus allowing them to scrutinise the government more effectively. Also they act as a means of deterrence. They prevent ministers from acting in a way that they could not justify in public. Thereby showing that M.P.‘s in the Select Committees are effectively scrutinising the government. M.P.‘s in the Select Committees can also examine and call for written evidence. This allows for an open government, through which M.P.‘s can effectively scrutinise the government.
Although some critics speculate that Select Committees have limited resources. Therefore they have insufficient funds to commission independent research into government, which would effectively allow them to scrutinise the government more meticulously. Furthermore many M.P.‘s leave Select Committees in order to take up jobs in government. Consequently their replacements often have an amateurish approach to scrutinising the government. These M.P.‘s do not have the necessary training in order to extract accurate information. In addition Select Committees seem to be at the mercy of government. These committees do not have subpoena powers. Therefore although they have the power to call witness’s and evidence, the government have the power to refuse to give them the written evidence, and the witness’s don’t have to answer any of the questions asked. An example of this was when the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, the government refused to allow certain witnesses to attend or to forward records, was investigating the sale of arms to Iran and Iraq. Thus showing that scrutiny is not always carried out effectively by M.P.‘s. Another reason why M.P.‘s in Select committees do not check up effectively on the government is because they are wilting under the pressure of excessive workloads. With all the work they are landed with M.P.‘s do not have the time in which to read all the papers relevant to the Select committee meetings and as a result their effectiveness as a scrutiny body is undermined.
Tony Blair introduced the latest mechanism of scrutinising the government. It allows Blair to be questioned twice a year by a panel of Select committee chairmen called the liaison committee. The liaison committee can question the Prime Minister on anything they wish on both domestic and international topics. The Guardian described the liaison committee as ‘one of the most striking innovations in Prime Ministerial accountability in decades’. The liaison committee is extremely effective at scrutinising the government, as the panel of 32 members are not sycophants. Thus not allowing the government to dominate this panel. This panel enhances and extends parliaments ability to hold the Prime Minister to account, and effectively scrutinises the Prime Minister and his government. In July 2003 Blair was questioned on a number of issues ranging from pensions to transport, and in January 2003 he was probed extensively on the war in Iraq. Hence showing that the government are effectively being scrutinised by M.P.‘s.
To finish off, one can conclude that yes, M.P.‘s do carry out the role of scrutiny successfully to a certain extent as beforehand we saw that through the six key scrutiny mechanisms, debates, question time, and the opposition, standing committees, Select Committees and the liaison committee the government is thoroughly checked up on by M.P.‘s. However one must also point out that each of these mechanisms also had faults, such as lack of resources that M.P.‘s need to scrutinise the government, and also the fact that government nearly always has party majority, which allows for party loyalty to take place and executive dominance. These all prevent the important process of scrutiny from taking place. Also government interference is also a huge problem in the scrutiny process, which shouldn’t be happening as its them the M.P.’s are supposed to be scrutinising. The government act difficult towards these scrutiny mechanisms in order to prevent them from being scrutinised exhaustively, and in order to make themselves look good.